Another confirmation of the politics of the court.
2
Justice Breyer is spot on. Something is drastically wrong when, for the first time in 200+ years, the Court is willing to support the idea that the government can hold people indefinitely without a hearing. This is frightening harbinger of the authoritarian direction our justice system is likely to be taking under Trump/Gorsuch.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that, had Republicans in the Senate not taken the ruthlessly partisan and blatantly undemocratic step of refusing to consider the judicial nominee of a twice-elected Democratic president, we would have had a different ruling with Justice Garland in place of Gorsuch. Had the presidential candidate who (despite Russian interference) won the popular vote by more than 3 million ballots been allowed to take office, her appointee would likely have stood up against this abuse of government power as well.
But here we are, with Trump and his appointee, Gorsuch. A brave new world.
11
And so it begins, a gradual erosion of our justice system. How long will it take before Americans become exceptionally angry and demand, perhaps with violence, that we get a new government and a new Supreme Court?
4
So, if this article is read carefully, the Court simply said that an immigration statute actually means what it says, not how the Ninth Circuit interpreted it, and sent the case back. While this provision could always be overturned later, I think that the point of disagreement should be with the legislators who passed it into law, not the Supreme Court, which was just exercising their reading skills. The members of the mainstream press who were making hay with this story yesterday should have made that singular point clear.
5
I'm sorry, but I don't think this article is very clear. Follow the link to the earlier ruling for a better explanation.
This paragraph, buried deep in this story, is key:
"The majority in Tuesday’s case ruled on narrow grounds, saying that the immigration laws do not by their terms authorize the hearings. It sent the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, instructing it to consider whether the Constitution requires the hearings ..."
In other words, the majority here was not deciding the Constitutional issue. They were interpreting the language of the statute. The case now goes back to the Ninth Circuit, which may very well find that the statute violates due process.
4
It isn't clear to me from the article whether these detained people are accused of a crime other than just being undocumented. Either way no one should be locked up for an unreasonable length of time without a trial or at least a bail hearing. Justice Breyer is absolutely correct that all people have an inalienable right to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. One of the basic purposes of our Constitution was to "establish justice", not to bicker over the literal meaning of the words in a law. Laws are written by fallible people often with conflicting ideologies and frequently cobbled together without sufficient thoughtfulness. If the precise literal meaning of legal jargon is all that is necessary to establish justice, then computers could replace judges. When there is a conflict between the letter of the law and a just outcome, justice should prevail. The law should serve the people, both individually and as a nation. That is why we need judges with knowledge, wisdom, open minds, and compassion; not robots.
4
There has been a longstanding belief that the Constitution (and its protections for the accused) applies to all persons within the United States. Now with the current population of our nation comprised almost completely of former immigrants, we are at the point of determining who among us "deserves" the rights inscribed in the Constitution. The current SCOTUS ruling leaves us with he possibility of long term incarceration of ANY undocumented person for an undetermined period of time, possibly years.
1
Rodrigues was not undocumented, he had a green card and legal status.
3
I thought that a basic premise of a civilized society was access to a fair judiciary. Apparently I am wrong at least in the United States. As a Canadian, it seems to be that the takeaway is that while visiting the United States I should not expect access to the courts should that be necessary. If I am not a citizen of the United States, as these immigrants are not, then I expect the same treatment.
Before Americans realize what is happening, the United States will be identified as a country to avoid by visitors and immigrants or refugees.
2
Define the penalty for "illegal immigration", impose it and be done. A person should not be kept in jail until...whenever? And this ruling applies to permanent legal residents, green card holders. Really? Is that a just decision, a moral one? It may be legal, but are we country of only laws without morals? Maybe that's what we want, but why do we then use moral positions to make laws? I'm so confused.
2
It’s somewhat refreshing to hear that at least Mr. Arulanantham recognizes that the authority of The Supreme Court is not absolute. Otherwise, this Supreme Court decision borders on the obscene.
1
NYT needs to be more carefully with its headlining. The Court did not say that "Detained Immigrants Cannot Have Bail Hearings" as on the home web page, nor "No Bail Hearings for Detained Immigrants" as on the article itself.
It said that detained immigrants do not have a Constitutional entitlement to such hearings. Whether one agrees with the Court or not, that's an important distinction.
7
Justice Breyer is right, and this decision will come to be regarded as a big mistake.
2
This recalls the U.S. Supreme Court decision during World War II upholding the government's program of internment camps for Japanese-Americans just because they were Japanese. While this Jennings decision may be a narrow statutorily based decision and not yet reviewed on a constitutional basis, will those involved in it and future historians regret the damage they have done to basic human rights? Justice Breyer got it right: due process is not a guarantee of a result but long-term detention without due process harms us all.
7
How does the detention of people breaking our laws recall a policy where American citizens, who had broken no law, were interned.
You just don't agree with the law. Be honest.
These people can almost immediately be released if they agree to leave the United States. There are 180 other countries in the world which could grant them asylum at any time. Overwhelmingly they are economic migrants who are looking for a better life and don't want to wait in line. They generally don't qualify for asylum. Worse, by trying to abuse our generosity, real qualified people needing asylum are not getting a chance to find safety.
Their blood is on your hands.
6
The issue here was whether people who have made the claim that they are here legitimately and legally have the due process rights we have always provided to non-citizens.
The mere fact that someone is illegal -- for example, because their visa expired -- does not speak to the issue of whether they qualify under US law to remain in the USA. Nor does the expiration of a visa mean that they have now forfeited all rights provided by law.
The USA needs to defend its borders and to control immigration. That does not justify the numerous methods this administration has thoughtlessly adopted -- such as the Muslim Ban -- that were blatantly unconstitutional from the get-go. They may get applause from people who really fear foreigners, but as Justice Breyer's dissent stated clearly -- this is the first time since slavery that the claim that non-citizens may receive no constitutional protections has been spoken aloud.
2
Last month Switzerland passed a law stating that immigrants must, in order to become citizens, repay all welfare and other benefits before they can become citizens. What a great idea!
By the way, illegal immigrants are not American citizens, so their rights are not the same as those of citizens.
11
I began reading U.S. Supreme Court cases during 6th grade and was engaged with the law for more than five decades. I have washed my hands of the federal legal system.
Bush v. Gore was convincing evidence that the Republicans on the Supreme Court are morally debauched political partisans.
District of Columbia v Heller showed that the Republicans on the Supreme Court respect neither constitutional jurisprudence, nor precedent, nor human life.
Citizens United v. F.E.C. was plain proof that the Republicans on the Supreme Court are far more committed to plutocracy than democracy.
The anti-constitutional nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court is an illegitimate appendage of the Republican Party.
The Supreme Court of the United States has no constitutional or moral authority, so its 5-4 rulings should be disregarded by jurists who believe in the rule of law and remain loyal to the U.S. Constitution.
American citizens no longer have any legal duty to obey rulings by the morally debauched and corrupt Republican majority.
8
We should not have indefinite detention. But balanced against that we should not have foreign nationals, most of them here illegally in order to find themselves in that state, awaiting months or years for hearings. They should be removed promptly, not sit around for such periods.
Bail? Ridiculous. Data clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of aliens told to come back later for a hearing simply do not do so. If we have taken them into custody then we owe it to them - and more importantly to the US - to have a quick hearing and, if adjudicated as such, to be swiftly deported.
12
Non- Citizen simply does not mean.. Non human. American slaves were non citzens and we see where that arguement ( eventually) led. Due Process should always be Due Process.
5
There are plenty of precedence of "guilty until proven innocent" cases in this Country. Look at how the liberal are treating Trump. Look at how men accused of sexual misconduct are treated. This outrage against illegal immigrants by the left wing is completely hypocritical.
Did you read what you wrote?
You say they are illegal. You call them illegal immigrants.
They are not claiming they are American citizens or that they have legal permission to remain in the United States.
If they are here illegally either because they entered illegally or over stayed their visa, the simple solution is for them to go home.
If they are applying for asylum, did they apply on the first day they arrived in the country? If not, why did they wait?
Are they applying for asylum in other countries, (less prosperous)?
Simply, the vast majority of these people are economic migrants seeking access to the American economy.
3
Got to love those Ninth Circuit clerics in the Bay Area--always wanting to push their cultural Marxism whenever they can.
7
I'll show 'em, I won't pick anything!
These are our grownups? Hopeless.
Justice Breyer; “We need merely recall that among them is the right to ‘liberty.’”
Liberty ends up in the trash when electoral colleged, non elected bad actors are installed in the oval office, who then make a farce of justice by infecting our supreme court with banana republicans.
1
Justice Breyer can quote the Declaration of Independence all he wishes; it is not a part of the United Stated legal system, having been penned long before there was a United States. Quotes from the Magna Carta, the Bible, or the writings of Adam Smith have just as much legal standing in court.
2
Note that in this long-term lockup of peaceful family members, taxpayers are contributing to the profits of private Republican donor jail owners
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/23/private-prisons-...
For example, taxpayers have been paying to keep a beloved high school chemistry teacher, who was arrested when about to drive one of his children to school in the morning, and whose wife donated a kidney, in jail, leaving his family without an income, his children unable be hugged by their dad, and running up a bill for taxpayers.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article202090439.html
3
Consider what this decision does to the Christian Right’s notion that rights are bestowed on mankind by God. It means that God maliciously discriminates against non-Americans.
4
What is it with the bleeding heart liberals that they don't get the illegal part of illegal aliens? If someone breaks into your home you expell them by calling the police or doing it yourself. You don't invite them to live with you and tell them to send for their family and friends. Yet that is what Pelosi, Schumer and most Dems want to do. No wonder Dems are so shut out of power at the local, state, and federal level.
16
You are mischaracterizing the position of Democrats. And, what is it with you, that you do not understand the Bill of Rights or basic concept like habeus corpus that western civilization has recognized since the 15th century?
8
This interpretation is not restricted to illegal aliens. It includes ALL immigrants, both legally in the country and without papers. In other words, those holding green cards. A green card holder who is detained by immigration will not have a right to a hearing. So so much for doing things in accordance to law. This decision clearly discriminates immigrants from citizens, no matter their legal status. As another poster commented, non-citizen does not equate to non-human.
2
Please read the article again with a more open mind.
Justice Breyer talked about the opportunity to obtain bail. The opportunity to be heard. That does not necessarily mean that bail will be granted.
Some of these people are seeking asylum. Who knows what the circumstances of the others who find them selves detained are but I do know that it is un-American to detain people for, in some cases years, without granting them an opportunity to be heard.
How would you feel if you were thrown in jail in a foreign country and denied a bail hearing, knowing that your case might not come up for years?
The article states,
"Justice Breyer responded that the decision was most likely “the first time ever” that the Supreme Court had interpreted a federal law to allow the long-term confinement of people held in the United States and accused of misconduct without an opportunity to obtain bail. “An ‘opportunity,’ I might add, does not necessarily mean release, for there may be a risk of flight or harm that would justify denying bail,” he said from the bench.
When are we going to investigate Trump properties, golf courses, construction etc to see if he has illegal immigrants working for him and how he gets them?????????????
7
"A victory for public safety....." And where was the person that massacred students in Florida from?
7
Same as in Turkey, hey...?
Did you really think our nation is exceptional in a GOOD way?
14
Not at all.
1
What is it about the words "illegal immigrant" that people on the left cannot understand? Illegal means a law has been broken. If you allow illegal aliens to bail out of incarceration, why would anyone believe they would not break their bail and take off? They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so.
20
What is it this decision also includes "legal immigrants" that people on the right do not understand? Next time, either pay attention or admit it is racist.
2
You still cannot hold them in jail forever. It is important that something like this does not affect legal immigrants as well.
You mean they will self-deport? As reported, many of these are asylum seekers, which gives a different spin to the terms “illegal immigrants.” And they are people, incarcerated for a year and more. Wouldn’t you seek bail, and if you were a person whose only crime was coming here without papers, perhaps to escape violence, wouldn’t you stay to try to become legal?
2
It isn't mentioned in the Supreme Court decision that the Inmigrants it is referring to are the ones coming from the South and have skins not too white.
The decision,together with the insistence in the building of a wall on the US-Mexico border is very clear.And also important is the fact those people speak Spanish,45 million of Spanish speakers in the US.That's why,when you make a phone call to a business you are asked which language you prefer,English or Spanish.The brown tide is coming!!!!
I doubt very much that we'll get many inmigrants from Norway,they are very happy with their country,specially because Trump isn't their President.The fact that Clinton got almost 3 million votes than Trump but he's President puzzles many people around the world.The use of a 1787 decision,when the only voters had to be White,Men,and Propietors,makes the vaunted Democracy in the US a joke.
11
They aren't citizens, and therefore, do not enjoy that same civil rights and liberties that citizens do, that's what you must keep in mind when lodging an emotionally based post.
17
Here, here, There, There
Human rights. Non-citizenship is not an excuse for the superior pleasurable denying of human rights.
1
There is something we call Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by The United Nations General Assembly on December 10 1948,Resolution 217.
1.All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to EQUAL PROTECTION of the law. All are entitled to equal protection AGAINST ANY DISCRIMINATION in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such Discrimination.(Article 07)
2.Everyone is entitled IN FULL EQUALITY to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determining of his rights ..." (Article 10)
Source:(un.org)
3
OK, America. It's now official. Even our Supreme Court has been hijacked by the same racist thought of the Dred Scott decision. There, I said it.
This ruling treats our nation's non-white immigrants the same as prisoners held in Gitmo. There's no skipping that fact. The anti-immigrant cancer has spread to all three branches of our Federal Government. For God's sake, why don't we dismantle the Statue of Liberty and ship it back to France with a note shouting "we don't want it!"
We have already witnessed the Department of Immigration scrub "a nation of immigrants" off its website. Now the Supreme Court has done the same to our laws.
22
All folks deserve their day in court. If a danger they get kept in jail. If able to function without threat they should go free with proper restrictions. Now the courts are become "So Sad".
14
Hopefully this well reasoned decision will also have the affect of deterring would be illegals of attempting to enter this country illegally.
12
Desperate people do not read the law books before acting.
2
Incarceration costs $159/day, or $58,035 per year. Multiplied by how many? You want to pay that? Because you will.
1
America, no longer a sanctuary? It certainly feels that way to me, and I'm a citizen.
The Supreme Court lost credibility after Citizens United.
15
Nope, think 'hanging chads'.
7
Gorsuch is an Injustice on the court
Give control of Congress to the Democrats in November to stop Trump from stacking the federal courts with right-wing ideologues.
14
Indefinite detention, sometimes for years? What if the detainee is proved innocent in a litigation or given asylum after of years of detention? What of the mothers with their children in confinement? It beats logic.
17
I do not know why all these lawyers and special interest "friend of the court" briefing filers prove so assiduous in their support of the interests of people who are not citizens, who have broken the law to be here, and who in many cases take jobs, places in schools, and other opportunities away from American citizens who might otherwise have them. The truth about this liberal effort to expand the American voting constituency more to their liking, is the Democratic Party has lost majority status - (so richly deserved in decline and decay) - among American citizens who vote. These legal eagles are not concerned about the interests of the people being deported, so much as they are concerned about the waning Democratic Party power base.
13
"people have unalienable rights" not citizens. . .ALL people
3
Maybe because they are human beings? Maybe because, unlike a conservative mind, a libera mind can feel empathy toward fellow human beings. Your nonsense about the Democratic Party losing majority status is almost laughable. There is a reason the Republicans work so hard to gerrymander and to suppress voting rights. The majority of citizens in this country would vote Democrat if the majority of citizens in this country could/would vote.
1
this rule also applies to legal permanent residents. They're not citizens, but are here legally. Isn't that something to be worried about? Show some empathy, people!
1
The Supreme Court lacks authority to deny detained immigrants a hearing to determine the lawfulness of their detention.
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
U.S. Const., Art. I., Sec. 9
Maurice F. Baggiano, Member of the U.S. Supreme Court
8
Correction: Maurice F. Baggiano, Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court
Does 11 to 20 million people qualify as invasion?
3
This is the worst decision that SCOTUS has made since Dred Scott. What do I tell the highly educated asylee who works for me? Do I tell him not to drive anymore for fear of being stopped and arrested and he then goes missing? What do I tell a family member here with a Green card who also gets stopped by an unfriendly police authority who says come with me son?
there will be an underground railroad created. This is a generational ruling which will take some time to be overturned until then we have become one big Gitmo.
Such a sad situation.
9
Isn't is possible to disagree with this decision without invoking the fear of slavery?
Do you have any idea as to what slavery was or what the Dred Scott decision was? It doesn't sound like it. This decision merely states that the letter of the relevant law(s) doesn't require that detained immigrants get bail hearings.
It doesn't say that Black people (regardless of citizenship status) have no rights which whites are bound to respect or ponder the horrible idea of Black people voting or holding public meetings as the Dred Scott decision did.
And by the way, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. The United States, Buck v. Bell, and several other SC cases were decided after Dred Scott.
Stop comparing immigrants to enslaved Africans. Utterly different situations.
3
@ Lilo, Shall we compare them to the Guantanamo detainees, then? They have been there for years, without right to bail, to a trial or to anything. This SCOTUS decision goes blatantly against human rights, just like slavery did.
But I don't see any large scale protests by the Dreamers to close down Gitmo. I'd have a lot more respect for them if they were protesting Gitmo.
But if we close Gitmo, I doubt we will bring the prisoners to the USA and give them citizenship.
1
The short answer is to accelerate the deportation process. If convicted of a felony, there should be no expectation of leniency.
People seem to forget there was a victim on the receiving end of their actions.
15
Not necessarily. Immigrants can be stopped for burning a red light, transferred to immigration authorities custody, and their right to a hearing will stop there. And that's it: deprived of freedom for having burned a red light, and being an immigrant (legally or illegally in the country) instead of a citizen. It is truly a punishment for being an immigrant, regardless of whether the person is int he US legally or not.
Say "Thank you!" to the Federalist Society for producing Constitutional "originalists" that believe the Constitution only says what they believe it means.
The only "contortions" and "linguistic trauma" in this decision came from the Majority who stood the Constitution on its head with their exercise in legal acrobatics. Obviously they believe they must destroy the Constitution in order to save it.
This is just one more step in the conservative march to authoritarianism.
10
Plenty of US citizens live without Constitutional right including military service members. Our own citizens who break laws are deprived of their Constitutional rights. Our rights are just that, a privilege given to good Citizens. Just because you are in our Nation illegally, you are not guarantee Constitutional rights. It is the basic tenet of Nationhood.
11
I consider this ruling a fear based hate crime.
This country, with all its tolerance for religions, is now condoning internment camps. We already have mass imprisonment of our citizens. The Statue of Liberty might as well be dismantled. Shame on the Supreme Court!
9
Indefinite detention for anyone is wrong. Either make the deportation machinery run faster or allow the *possibility* of bail.
People who support indefinite detention must not be using their imagination. Walk a mile in their shoes.
7
Apart from substance, note that Gorsuch again voted with Thomas. It is safe to say that the two are now joined at the hip to anchor the extreme end of the conservative side of the Court. The only thing worse than unthinking, ideologue jurists to further along disrespect of our judiciary is our President, who along with showing no respect for the judiciary, shows little for Congress and little for the Presidency itself. There's a risk that Trump and the Republicans if they stay in power will soon have our democracy on life support.
4
It appears that the Supreme Court quinquevirate has plenty of time to spare. Refusing to entertain the constitutional aspect after asking for briefs on that same issue is utter officiousness and indifference verging on dilettantism. How is the circuit court expected to find otherwise with regard to the constitution when it concluded in favour on the much narrower statutory terrain?
It is like asking the circuit court after it concluded that there is enough light at dawn to tell two persons apart if it considers that there is enough light at noon to do the same.
In the meantime, people who have the right to remain free under the same circumstances in the 48 countries members of the Council of Europe and countries like Canada and Australia are being detained without due process.
1
I think this and other votes have given the lie to the idea that Justice Kennedy is a moderate. Although he sometimes writes idiosyncratic (and muddled) opinions, any Justice who goes along with this wildly unconstitutional one can hardly be called anything other than an extreme conservative (or worse). This is just another terrible blot on the Court as were many of his previous votes such as Heller, Ledbetter, and Citizen's United.
Anyone who hopes that Kennedy will do the right thing is just whistling in the dark.
4
Sotomayor should have recused Herself from this case and any other future hearings concerning illegal immigrants, and women’s rights. Not long ago she stated that “our gender and national origins make a difference in our judging.”I assume that comment means that she will interpret the law as she sees fit and not as written in our constitution.
12
Pvbeachbum, "I assume that comment means that she will interpret the law as she sees fit and not as written in our constitution."
Isn't that what Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas do?
1
Following your logic, all of them should have recused.
The perverse result in tis case argues for direct election of all Federal Court Judges.
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."- The actual text of the Fifth Amendment. Looks like we have another Dred Scott decision.
4
As long as Bail for un-documented Immigrants is being debated
can we please discuss Bail for Citizens who are charged with
non-violent felonies.
Upon mere accusation and the willingness of the Police/Sherriff
to believe such an accuasation you can spend months/years
waitng for your trail in the County Jail if you cannot make bail.
You can be completely innocent and your life ruined.
9
Justice Breyer got it right.
2
Re: "to determine an alien’s status without running the risk of the alien’s either absconding or engaging in criminal activity.”
Can't citizens abscond or engage in criminal activity as well? From a moral and ethical point of view how can you not want to apply this standard to all,unless you believe citizens are imbued with a magical inability to abscond or engage in criminal activity?
From a human point of view how is this any different from "to determine an citizen’s status without running the risk of the citizen either absconding or engaging in criminal activity.”?
Ok. Citizens have extra protection by law. Lucky us. But that doesn't make them superior beings or immune from the very things this is supposed to protect us from.
2
The right to liberty does not extend to individuals who do not yet have the right to be in a country legally. The host nation has the right to determine whether they should be admitted.
11
Except this decision applies to ALL immigrants: those who are in the country legally, or not. The right to liberty is a human right, not an "citizen" right.
I guess the for-profit detention centers will make even more blood money.
2
Absolutely No Due Process. Indefinite detention due to the assumption that they are criminals-in-waiting.
I am ashamed for my country. Will this decision set a precedent for future treatment of people who the White Christian Males find objectionable?
3
It appears Alito watches so much Fox News that like many he too has learned to hate logic. Even people on trial for murder are entitled to a hearing on bail that's what the majority ignore. The Supreme Court's arrogance is profound. Do they actually think there are truly that many jail cells available to incarcerate this new prison population?
2
Hmm, round up people considered undesirable; intern them indefinitely in concentrated detention facilities;remove most options available for attaining freedom; ignore reports of questionable and abusive treatment..........
Gosh, gee whiz. Where the heck have I hear about this before?
First they came for the immigrants...
24
Well, they are here illegally AND committed crimes, so a double whammy....they shouldn't be allowed to fester in jail, but be deported swiftly.
10
This is obscene. America under Trump is gradually sliding into an authoritarian state like the British empire we rebelled against. This is sickening.
11
Actually, the Supreme Court heard the contention of the Obama administration since the case had been under way well before Trump's election. The Trump administration fully concurred with the Obama administration's position though.
8
trump has nothing to do with this. He is just the current Republican loud mouth in the White House. You can thank Mitch McConnell for this. He is the ring leader of the alt-right Republican party.
1
Justice Alito, why not just repeal the Constitution and you can do whatever you like?
9
Get used to it.
As in many other first-world countries, ILLEGAL Immigrants have NO Rights. Go home!
12
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." -the Fifth Amendment.
3
And you live at a place called Las Pulgas? Who gave your place its name?Surely they weren't English speakers.
Besides,living at a place called The Fleas isn't very elegant.
1
In our country humans have rights, whether they are here undocumented or not. Only barbaric dictatorships ignore human rights.
4
By definition, illegal aliens are in this country illegally. They should be deported and, if they qualify under the law, be allowed to return to the US in a lawful manner.
US citizens cannot afford to pay (via taxes) to meet the genuine needs of American citizens (veterans, disabled, et al.), let alone the millions of foreigners who are in this country illegally.
Enough with trying a pretty-up an ugly picture by calling illegal aliens immigrants.
14
In reality, these undocumented immigrants contribute more to our economy and pay more taxes than any benefits they may get.
And you would presume them illegal until they prove they are legal, from inside a jail cell with no access to phones?
3
By keeping them in jail, you ARE paying their bills. Indefinitely.
"Linguistic trauma?"
Oliver Wendell Holmes, or Benjamin Cardozo, you ain't.
3
How many times must Elena Kagen recuse herself? This was a terrible pick for the left.
9
Yep. Because it's the immigrants shooting up schools, churches, concerts and theatres. Wait, nevermind.
14
The article states that this policy/ruling applies to immigrants, but mentions no distinction between legal or illegal immigrants.
So if a green card holder has their wallet stolen, and has the misfortune to encounter an Immigration Officer, there is nothing to stop that person from being sucked into a life-destroying indefinite detention. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Good to know. As a former green card holder, I am relieved that I left.
11
Consider that the case in question is based on a legal resident (has a “green card”). There are men and women in our military that are legal residents but do not have citizenship (about 4% of active members). These men and women are risking their lives for the rest of us yet this ruling essentially allows a suspension of their most basic of civil rights - the very rights these folks are fighting for with their lives on our behalf.
So if you’re of the “conservative” bent, why aren’t you clamoring for the unfair treatment of those brave soldiers? Perhaps it’s inconvenient?
55
There are provisions for accelerated citizenship for members of the military.
5
You're absolutely right! We should grant citizenship to those (approximately 900, according to news reports) illegals who have served honorably and the same to the green card holders who have similarly served honorably. The rest of the illegals (at least 10 and probably 20 million) should be deported immediately. There, your concern properly addressed!
6
Even more to the point, why aren’t conservatives en masses joining the military and putting their patriotism on the line? I served with a number of soldiers who weren’t citizens in Nam but who were hoping it would help their application. Believe me, those guys were ten times the inner weight of the people who attended the C-PAC convention.
The Court ruled that current law does not allow for bail. And, in fact, the law contains several provisions requiring mandatory detention. The relevant laws were passed in 1996 and 1997. Bill Clinton was President at the time and signed them into law. The Republican controlled Congress voted for the provisions. Half the Democrats agreed, including Diane Feinstein and Harry Reid. The Supreme Court merely ruled that statutes that call for mandatory detention do not allow for bail. I don't see how it could have ruled any other way with a straight face. The fault here lies with Clinton, the Republicans and half the Democrats. That's almost everybody who voted on the matter.
27
blah, blah, blah "the law says..." blah
You seem to forget that one key function of SCOTUS is to pass judgement on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Which is what Bryer did.
Agree with them or not on the substance, all this hoo-ha from the Right about activist liberals trying to invent new law is mean-spirited tripe. As usual.
I suspect the problem is that, whenever their team wants to create law out of wholly cloth it has the good sense to call up a pleasing pantomime like "original intent" to make people think its official. Although lately, not so much; they just blow through favorite shibboleths like "States Rights" as if they're not even there.
2
Another step violating what America stands for from the venal, morally challenged side of the court. I weep for what is lost in this ruling; depraved and short-sighted and lacking in humanity.
19
This is a clear signal that a majority of Supreme Court Justices have concluded that the Constitution and laws grant the President virtually un-reviewable powers to regulate immigration. Two Judges even held that the Courts do not have jurisdiction to review those decisions much less set them aside. Shortly the Court will put to an end the wild judicial activism of the 9th Circuit- by holding that Congress and the Executive have plenary power to regulate immigration and have acted Constitutionally. Many of these immigrants came to the US relying upon the false promises of sanctuary from the left. YOUR TEARS ARE JUSTIFIED-YOU AND THE LEFT HAD NO RIGHT TO OFFER THEM SANCTUARY.
1
Following the law is always difficult for some of us.
3
When Americans are held/detained abroad every effort is made to secure their release.... by the US Government.
9
Maybe in high profile cases. For the most part though, it is not like in the movies that the US Embassy actively helps Americans who are detained abroad. I know of an American who seems to have a hold departure order on him such that he can't go to the states at will.
12
roy519, I've spent 16 years outside of the US as an adult, including the last seven years here in Brazil. You're right. I've never been under the illusion that the US would ever lift a finger for me under any circumstances. I'm neither military, a diplomat nor the representative of a multinational. They could care less whether I live or die.
4
Shameful and inhuman; something you don't expect to happen in the United States but in places like Iran or North Korea. I am sure there are better ways to deal with this problem.
18
If they cant be processed then they should be released. If they are employed, then taxpayer dollars are doubly wasted. They could have wages garnished. This ruling either creates yet another underclass if they are cleared, and likely destroys one or more lives if they are deported- in addition to adding to the tax burden of paying for all of this detention. In short if Immigration cant, or is not funded, to do its job, then our constitution has very little meaning beyond the right to bear arms and dump verbal garbage.
1
There is a difference: Nobody in the right mind is trying to get into Iran or North Korea, so they don't have to deal with this issue.
2
"Inflicting linguistic trauma " really Mr Alito? On whom? Me thinks you are too impressed with yourseif? I think these thoughts are far afield from the issues at hand and the lives of real people !
29
Inalienable rights. Sigh. Law school must be more creative than a Rod Serling horror. But Alito, the son of immigrants may be judged (o being kind here) by the new Curiel amendment, that one's heritage defines and invalidates one's judicial mind.
9
Read history. Immigrants are simply the canaries in the coalmine. They are among the vulnerable in society, and the abuse and ill treatment shown to them today will be shown to all citizens tomorrow. another form of the Golden Rule.
29
Your comment is interesting. Please explain more on it. What in history makes you say that immigrants are the canary in the coalmine?
2
The periods during which the Black Civil Rights movement was most successful also happened to be periods of low immigration.
The nadir of the post-bellum Black American experience 1910~1925 were periods of high immigration. Most of those immigrants were white and thus treated better than Black American citizens.
We can't say "after this, therefore because of this", but it's just not true that immigrants are the most vulnerable or that their bad experiences will automatically be shared with citizens.
Democrats didn't pull out all the stops to get Garland on the court and now we have the extremists Gorsuch on the bench. Democrats need to remind Americans of the importance the Supreme Court has on daily life and of the need to flip the Senate this year to prevent the GOP's efforts to turn back the clock on human advancement
37
Agreed!!
Why wasn't Obama giving speeches and educating the public on how untruthful McConnell was about presidential election year appointments to the court?
Mitch is full of it.
Justices have been appointed and approved in these election years routinely. Obama (I love him) had no fight in him… except during his campaigns! He could have crushed McConnell - challenge him to "truth session" and show him as the liar he is.
Heck, just call him a liar every day.
Here's the truth:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidentia...
2
Unfortunately we can't just shut off discussion of presidential election year appointments at 1900 as that link does. The country existed before then.
The nominations of Bradford, Walworth and Spencer were identical situations to Garland's. The Senate has refused to consider nominations in Presidential election years for purely partisan reasons before,
https://quiznox.com/2017/01/31/election-year-supreme-court-nominations/
Justice delayed is justice denied. While SCOTUS plays grab--- by sending this case back to the lower courts, people who are legal residents are being held indefinitely for no obvious or good reason.
11
Even conservatives should be cautious of a government that is afraid of periodic review of their work. In this case, one government agency (INS) is worried about another government agency (judges) reviewing their work. A government that is afraid of review is likely hiding something.
23
Those 29 members of Congress who used the so called 'American Legal Foundation' to enter into the matter y filing a brief...they need to be removed form their offices, locked in cells on the public streets in full view of all of America and publicly shamed. How can Americans support a policy of denying some sort of due process to people that are being held on the suspicion of violating some federal law? Shame on them. We need a revolution...we need to change up this government and amid our own Constitution. What we say if this happened to an American in another country...ponder that one Mr. Trump and kind.
14
I like your idea of punishment of Congresspersons for filing a brief. It reflects the usual tolerance on the Left for people who disagree with them -- which lack of tolerance was a major contributor to Trump's victory in 2016. Perhaps intolerance will work better in 2018 or 2020 than it did in 2016, but it certainly is not a sure bet. I'd suggest the Left calm down a bit, lose the hysterics, but it doesn't look as if that's going to happen.
1
Doesn't the right wing believe in "original intent"?
What is the plain meaning of the constitution on this matter?
8
The case involved the plain meaning of a statute, the constitutionality of which wasn't challenged. The plaintiff merely asked a federal court to read into the statute a provision that isn't there. The court did, and the 9th Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court correctly pointed out that the statute is plain on its face and make no provision for periodic bail hearings. The liberal justices sought to find one, probably "emanating from the penumbra of the Bill of Rights", since that's their favorite place for discovering such non-enumerated rights.
22
The Right Wing doesn't believe in much, except getting what it wants.
"Original intent" is a transparent fraud, employed by the lightweight Scalia whenever he felt actually 'crafting' a legitimate decision was impossible because the decisions themselves were constitutionally indefensible, and furthered by conservative think tanks and faculty members for largely the same lack of reason.
The fraud is made plain, more than anything else, by the lame and frequent violations that occur whenever conservatives decide they need to just force people to do whatever it is conservatives want them to do already.
The recent prevalence of "original intent" arguments, like Roberts' bizarre "stare decisis" festival at his confirmation, marks the beginning of the long slide of SCOTUS and our legal system generally into corruption and irrelevance. Not that anyone cares.
13
New Jersey civilly commits sexual offenders to indefinite hospitalization AFTER serving a prison term. Treatment rarely succeeds and “patients “ rarely get released....
Who cares? Even they get redress before a judge....
3
You’re argument is so over the map, I’m not sure where you’re coming from or what you’re looking for.
I’m a glass is half/full guy.
2
Again the Urban Elites attempt to avoid bringing immigrations to the floor of the legislature by using the courts to invalidate current attempts to enforce the law of the land. Why have the distinguished Senators from California not presented immigration legislation that reflects their public statements on the issue? Are they afraid of the political repercussions?
23
It is hard to predict Supreme Court decisions lately. In some cases (like this one), they follow the law. In other cases, they make up rights out of whole cloth.
11
"...bond hearings are required after six months to determine whether detainees who do not pose flight risks or a danger to public safety may be released while their cases proceed..."
This doesn't seem that controversial, even to a proponent of strict enforcement of immigration laws (remember "the rule of law"?). How can we hold people for over six months without a bail hearing? If that's the law, then we need to change the law, because that kind of law is unbecoming the United States.
13
Or we could simply send them back if they cannot be processed within an "acceptable" timeframe.
2
Why not six days? Or six years? Or six hours? As long as you're making up stuff, you can make up anything you want. If the Ninth Circuit had found the law unconstitutional, that would be a different matter. But instead they, and the District Court, just decided they were better at making law than the Congress. That's the problem with this case, which liberal judges, so used to believing that the law says anything they want it to say, need to internalize.
3
I think the argument is do we have open borders or not. Time and time again, undocumented immigrants who were given court orders to leave the country, never complied with the orders and disappeared into the shadows. If they cross the borders illegally and are in detention until their case is determined there is nothing wrong. If they do not wish to be detained, they can seek admittance through asylum at UN refugee centers and wait for a decision as a free person.
30
The case itself is pretty simple: do you use the text of the statute when you're adjudicating? The 9th circuit and the dissenters argue that you don't need to use the statute as a basis for your decision. The majority of court said that you do.
This is not an issue of law, it's an issue of approach.
The real question is: what is the basis that the 9th Circuit and the dissenters are using when it comes to adjudicating? Equity? Ends? Their imagination? At what point does that basis become arbitrary and capricious?
19
When the law is clear, as it was in this case, it's always arbitrary and capricious.
1
Many have assumed this was a matter of deportation of illegal immigrants and made blanket statements that such people shouldn't be afforded the rights that the constitution says are self-evident for all people. That's a severe misunderstanding of this case.
The lead plaintiff was a legal permanent resident, and a minor. He was charged, convicted/pled and released on charges of joyriding and misdemeanor drug possession. A citizen would be Done. Out. Free.
But instead, he was locked up in indefinite detention, awaiting trial for deportation proceedings. His pretrial jailing, for three years, was much longer than any sentence for the original charges, indeed, the justice system had already released him for those charges. During that time, he was denied the opportunity to even argue to a judge that he wasn't a danger to others, that he had substantial family ties, that he wasn't a flight risk. More than that, he had no way to know how long he'd be in detention. When he finally got to trial, he successfully defended against deportation and won the right the stay in the country.
Those three years in jail was not punishment for a crime - that was already taken care of. It's well known that placing a person in custody severely damages their ability to prepare for trial. It prevents them from arranging for witnesses, preparing evidence, against the overwhelming power of the government. To deny access to bail serves only to try to break the spirit of LEGAL immigrants.
45
Would he have been detained for possible deportation if his name was McGregor or Dalager instead of Rodriguez?
3
Horrifying and reprehensible. Sounds like Guantanamo coming to the mainland. We are losing any sense of national identity and empathy for others, and what else is civilized society but concern for everyone?...
18
This detained immigrant had a Green Card and has been in US since he was a 1-year old baby! He was not illegal and did not break immigration laws!
This is a poorly written article by Adam Liptak and it's a shame all these commenters were left with the impression that the SC decision is about illegal immigrants. The article also doesn't make clear whether Rodriguez has been in continuous detention for 13 years or what his misdemeanor in 2004 was that led to this terrible punishment.
The implications of today's SC judgment are horrifying for the 20 million or so legal immigrants in USA, and puts today's America on par with Soviet gulags and other inhumane governments throughout history.
50
Alito seem anxious and determined, with the death of the acerbic Scalia, to inherit the sobriquet of Justice Nasty. Why, like the stone faced Buddha Thomas, can't he simply refrain from opening his offensive mouth. It is quite enough that one must read what spews forth from his poisoned pen.
22
Why do our supremes have to be so predictably on one side or the other? Most people I know aren't. I am liberal on some issues, but not on others. But this pack - totally predictable. So very disappointed they are lock-step in their ideologies.
15
It’s because we’ve been fooled into thinking these guys are different, they aren’t. Just a different branch of the same rotten tree.
7
This is outrageous! Things have gone too far. What has happened to our democracy and those sworn to follow the Constitution?
14
They are following the law. It's the liberal judges that are trying to create rights not granted by it.
2
Deport or release; that is the question. The Executive branch has an obligation to determine whether an alien be deported or set free That should be done in a period of weeks (or perhaps a few short months) not many months or years. Make a timely decision and carry it out. That way we avoid polarizing litigation.
5
No problem with that. If at any time the alien would like to return to his own country, he should be allowed to do so. Problem solved.
3
Did I miss something? Have we repealed the 14th Amendment?
11
Is there no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment in this nation any more? Maybe they are not citizens, but we as a nation stand for something! Come on. This is just crazy and inhumane. These people deserve due process and deserve to have it quickly.
19
Right wing activist judges making law.
16
"Making law" is what the District Court and Ninth Circuit did. The SC majority just followed the law, that's all. If there's a Consititional flaw in the law, I am SURE the Ninth Circuit will find it on remand.
Your misunderstanding is probably influenced by the article itself, which falsely says, "The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that people held in immigration detention, sometimes for years, are not entitled to periodic hearings to decide whether they may be released on bail." That is not true. All the majority said was the obvious truth that that was what the law said. Had the Ninth Circuit paid the slightest attention, it would have seen the same thing. Now, on remand, it will have an opportunity to determine whether there is a Constitutional flaw in the law as it stands (what it should have done in the first place, instead of creating a new law out of whole cloth).
2
Justice Breyer is speaking of human rights, not just American rights--the right to be treated with a minimum amount of decency, the right to liberty, inalienable right, not just an American right. The conservatives on the court seem not to have any care, any basic humanity or decency. They would let people rot for years in imprisonment who have committed no crime.
30
Well said.
6
Justice Breyer and the rest of leftist wing of the court speaking of "liberty" is a joke. These are the same liberty seeking justices who would tell your son or daughter that despite their higher test scores they are the wrong color or gender to be admitted to the college. These are the same liberty seeking justices who would tell you that you must purchase health insurance or pay a fine. These are the same liberty seeking justices who would force you to bake a cake for the gay wedding. They never talk about liberty until it suits their ideological agenda.
21
San Jose Joe's comment is beneath contempt. The authors of the Constitution would not be on the side of the majority in this particular case.
10
The best way to avoid being detained is to not break our immigration laws.
29
Bravo Jon. Why not apply that logic to all laws, after all, a law is a law, and breaking one must be as serious as breaking another, whether an immigrant or a naturally born citizen. In fact, we might argue the punishment should be harsher for citizens since they presumably would be better versed in the law and their importance. Let us turn our attention to the White House...
12
buddhaboy:
Citizens do receive harsher treatment. There are no "sanctuary cities" for American citizens. There is no presidential mandate to stop enforcement of laws governing their behavior, except in the case of "serious crimes".
Prison is full of American citizens who were not given the breaks that illegal immigrants have been given.
1
Wake up! The case is about a LEGAL resident of this nation. If this country accepts you, do you not have basic civil rights?
It’s a slippery slope. Today we curtail some people’s rights, tomorrow they might just take your guns away...
People who are not in the country legally are not entitled to all the constitutional protections that citizen and legal non citizen residents are. This ruling reflects that long standing perspective. It is amazing how the left sees no difference between legal and illegal. They basically support open borders in everything way except actually saying it.
25
Not true. Non citizens in America also have constitutional protections. They lack some rights, such as the vote, but do have protections.
7
Now there’s a proposition. I thought that, according to the Declaration of Independence was clear that certain rights, such as liberty, is God given. Therefore, is is not based on citizenship. Citizenship is man created.
5
The case also covered detained green card holders who are, by definition, in the country legally.
15
I think we're catching a little whiff of Gitmo here.
Are they on American soil or under American control?
Are the people holding them legally recognized as Americans?
If those answers are "yes" then I think we have a case here of "Princess Brideitis" for I do not think that the word "American" means what you think it means.
But don't feel bad, Supremes... there's a lot of that going around lately.
1
The SCOTUS of the last 20 years is the worst since the 1880’s and ranks among the worst in our history.
25
You are correct. It created a right to same sex marriage out of thin air. It ruled that the Obamacare mandate isn't a tax but it is a tax. Despite the law not having a severability clause, it ruled half of it is illegal but let the other half proceed.
10
Bush v Gore, Heller, Citizens United each rank in the BOTTOM 10 worst rulings in our history.
4
That's true of Citizens United -- unless you believe in the First Amendment.
This is stomach churning reading. We're talking about people who haven't been convicted of any crime, and yet can be held indefinitely in prison. Where are the conservative civil libertarians so worried about god-given rights and Freedom?
59
We conservatives are demanding that the constitution and laws of this nation be followed, and that illegals - NOT "immigrants" as this atrocious "publication" misrepresents them as - be deported, as they should be.
10
The illegal aliens are being held in detention, not in prison. If they do not like it, they have the option of electing to leave voluntarily.
Breyer's statement that 2/3 of asylum seekers are ultimately successful is flat out false. Two thirds of the 10% who show up for their immigration hearing are successful. The other 90% are in the wind. It is also misleading because those being held in detention are not primarily asylum seekers, so whether or not asylum seekers are likely to be successful is irrelevant.
People who enter the country, or remain in the country, illegally have a right to due process. They do not have a right to due process and are free to leave the country if they find the wait in detention to be too tedious.
6
We have cases of failed asylum seekers who are detained for five years in Canada. A recent news story highlighted the case of a man who entered the country on a cousins passport, his asylum claim was denied and he was to be deported. He had no identity papers on him and said he was from Guinea. Once he arrived in Guinea with his Canadian escorts officials in that country said he was not their citizen and refused to take him. Once back it turns out he is actually from Ghana (maybe) but again no identity papers so Ghana will not take him. His lawyer (taxpayer funded) says in his defense that he is illiterate so Guinea or Ghana is sort of one and the same to him. There is a fuss in the news over his human rights but when one looks at the amount of money this man has cost the taxpayer as a result of a bogus refugee claim I think that is what is criminal. The concept of asylum is too easily used, I think. This man has some sort of charge against him in the US for selling pirated DVDs that did not result in jail time, but how did he enter the US without documentation? Many of these asylum seekers destroy identity papers.
12
I find the headline here terribly misleading; it is half true. This article makes it appear as if the issue has been decisively resolved. It hasn't been. This paragraph is key:
"The majority in Tuesday’s case ruled on narrow grounds, saying that the immigration laws do not by their terms authorize the hearings. It sent the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, instructing it to consider whether the Constitution requires the hearings — but only if various procedural roadblocks could be overcome."
SCOTUS reversed AND remanded on the grounds that the immigration statute does not support a hearing. Whether detainees are warranted a hearing under the Constitution is ANOTHER question that has been returned to the Ninth Circuit. This is far from over. Detainees didn't get their protection yet based on legislation, but the Constitution is still is out there and that question remains up in the air.
17
Thank you for pointing this out. Headlines reflect the author/media's bias. On the flip side this week, all the headlines were that SCOTUS would not reverse DACA. That was not accurate. They ruled that the case may be taken up later in the normal course of appeals. But all headlines were misleading, as if SCOTUS had made a final ruling against DACA--and Trump.
18
SCOTUS makes decisions on issues that are put before them. The 9th circuit did not argue that it was unconstitutional to hold illegal immigrants indefinitely in detention, they argued that it was irrelevant that the law did not require bail hearings, they thought it should have required bail hearings so they created law out of nothing. SCOTUS ruled that the law is what the law is and sent it back to the 9th circuit.
It is likely that the 9th circuit will create a Constitutional right and the issue of Constutionality will wind up back at SCOTUS.
The four left wing justices want to answer a question that had not been asked of them, ignoring the rule of law. Once again, the 9th circuit has been slapped down by SCOTUS for failing to follow the law.
It's interesting that Kagan did not see fit to recuse herself the last time the issue came up. But the decision would have been decided 4-3 the last time in opposition to the leftists if she had recused herself. It will be interesting to see if she recuses herself when the issue comes back to SCOTUS or if her principles only apply when her recusal is irrelevant
The primary issue with the four leftist justices is that they consistently determine the desired partisan outcome and rule to achieve that outcome, ignoring the law in the process.
4
This comment should be a Times Pick.
The paragraph from the article which the comment quotes accurately reflects the decision of the majority of the Justices: the statute does not permit bail hearings in these limited kinds of immigration cases; but the case is remanded to the Ninth Circuit for a ruling on the law's Constitutionality as so interpreted.
That paragraph should have bee the lead paragraph and the editors should appreciate that fact. Otherwise, the NYT will be accused of bias by some or even of generating "fake news."
Failure to make it the lead paragraph results in the confusion among readers reflected in the comments section.
On one side, there are numerous comments bemoaning the inhumanity, viciousness, and even the desecration of the Constitution which the decision supposedly represents. The Constitutional question remains to be decided. If the majority is correct in its construction of the statute (and it appears to this attorney that they have the better end of the stick), it isn't the Court but the Congress which seeks the incarceration and should bear the credit or blame.
On the other side are the comments presuming that the statute refers only to people who entered the country illegally. This assumption is wrong. The plaintiff was accorded legal residency in the United States, but he many years later committed a crime. The statute also applies to asylum seekers who follow the law and apply for asylum immediately upon entering the United States.
4
One more step away from the rule of law. If you are an illegal immigrant, our vaunted Constitution provides no rights. Illegal begets illegal.
I'm sure it will be thrown in our face next time an American his held overseas, and denied all rights on grounds that their status in the country is illegal.
15
That is not at ALL what this decision says. It did not decide the Constitutional question.
And why should that be a problem? If an American violates the laws of another country in respect of its immigration laws, they should be treated as such. plus you missed the point of the article that the action was remanded to the lower court to address the Constitutional issue.
10
If an illegal alien does not want to be held in detention, he has the right to leave voluntarily.
10
What would happen to an American citizen who decided not to pay taxes, submitted fraudulent documents to work, fake SS number, took medicaid with unreported cash income, and essentially stole services such as schools, healthcare etc.... in any country? JAIL. What would happen to them in the USA? JAIL.
Why do we make heroes out of illegal aliens?
42
This case is not only about illegal immigrants. It is also about people being held in detention while their asylum claims are determined. According to Justice Breyer's dissent, 2/3 of the asylum seekers are eventually found to have valid asylum claims and receive asylum.
5
Yes, jail if they were found guilty. But they would have a bail hearing before they were convicted and probably parole hearings afterwards. These detainees seek asylum. That is not against the law and they have committed no crime entering the country in search of asylum. The crime is if they do not leave if they are denied asylum.
8
Frequent commenter- Thank you for your response.
I am not sure how that changes it. If you are seeking asylum, you are subject to our rules. If you win, great. If not, you leave. And how will that happen if you are out of custody? It will not.
Constitutional rights do not promise bail. It promises due process. Bail, unless I misunderstand, is not a right. I of course support decent treatment in custody, but not freedom to disappear into our society.
5
Chalk this up as another stat in the 9th circuit batting 0.000 when it comes to its rulings upheld by the Supreme Court.
I am no lawyer so I do not know the legalisms of this case nor may actually understand nuances.
But, justice Alioto's instructions to the 9th circuit is something I can understand. "Read the law. And don't make it up."
As to this ACLU lawyer saying, "it ain't over yet." Perhaps.
But hopefully, the other inferior courts will read this loud and clear.
As Chief Justice most memorably said about his job on the Court, "I call "balls and strikes."
He could have added that inferior courts should stick to the same practice. Unfortunately, trend has been to have these inferior courts and most definitely 9th circuit - not just call balls and strikes - but to send in plays.
18
Well said.
7
If it was as easy as "read the law and don't make it up", most of the cases would never need to be resolved by a court. The problem is when the law is silent or ambiguous. Here, the statute did not provide for a hearing. That does NOT mean that there is obviously and self-evidently no right to a hearing. When the law is silent, it could be up to a judge, or it could still leave open the right to a hearing on Constitutional grounds -- eg, the 5th and 14th Amendment right to not have the government deprive you of liberty without due process of law. It cannot be the case that the government can hold people indefinitely on US soil without a right to a hearing on due process grounds, although there is likely a question of just how long the government can hold you before your due process right to a hearing kicks in.
That was the precise issue that the 9th Circuit was trying to address. For the same reason, the quote about judges "just calling balls and strikes" is equally laughable. If only the correct answer to complex legal questions was that obvious!
7
And I call them as I see em, through the prism of neoconservatism.
For all those that agree with the court......Wait till they come for you.
Good luck America.
12
When they came for the jews, I did not speak out, because I’m not a Jew. When they came for the gays I did not speak out, because I’m not gay. When they came for the socialists, I did not speak out, because I’m not a socialist. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out, because I’m not a trade unionist. Then they came for me, no one spoke out, because there was no one left to speak for me. Those words were spoken by a Martin Neimoeller, and no truer words were ever spoken. We have a cumulative short memory, and the world that Martin spoke of is only 75 years old, but those who bore witness to the Nazis, and the Italian Fascist Party, are mostly gone, or too old and marginalized to tell that part of living history. I’ve been to a couple of the concentration camps, it was an unbelievable sight, yet we forget that was only 75 years ago, but we haven’t taken heed of their warnings or of history repeating itself. All the ingredients are here today, the hatred, racism, propaganda, the deportations have begun, and now a supreme court justice, who’s obvious dislike of immigrants, writes that immigrants don’t have rights. Still, we choose to sit by, those of use who’s fathers fought in WWII, told us of the horrors of war, the criminalization of a religion, or a gender, or sexual orientation, or just the color of your skin, was enough to get your whole family murdered, yet we sit by.
So who will speak for them, who will speak for us, when those in power come for us.
15
The choice is always easy for Republicans. Chose the meanest thing to do if it affects people who probably are not Republicans. Why else would white Christians vote Republican.
20
Ha, the same reason violent criminals, welfare cases and illegal aliens vote Democrat -- they want a party that represents their interests!
1
ILIVETHER, "illegal aliens" (I prefer the term "undocumented immigrants") don't vote. Period. * smh *
I do believe in Kama - what goes around come around - you reap what you sow - this country is due for some well deserved nasty surprises - yes even more than the last year.
10
Very curious about comments on this article tonight. The level of discourse in these comments is far below what I've read on other articles. Is there a troll army attack on this column?
10
The Supreme Court is useless. Probably greater than 90% of the time you can predict the outcome. We should start using computers (Watson may be a good choice) to decide outcomes.
Just feed the computer with the Constitution and case law. It can't be worse than the ideologues sitting there for life.
6
I think you can often do so in major controversial cases, which may be what you meant. On the other hand, I remember a friend of mine, definitely a bright guy, who said he could tell me the outcome of any case based on the justices ideology proving pretty bad at it. It just meant he had a side and didn't like the other one.
2
Computers are not the solution. Taking party politics out of the nomination and confirmation process does.
7
This is what Canada has done, their justices aren’t picked by the incoming president, in fact they can be fired. Their jobs aren’t necessarily a lifetime appointment. In fact, just ask the justice that was tossed off the bench for wearing a make America great again hat, though I’m not sure if he had a toupee to keep on in a strong wind or not.
Judges in Canada can have no political affiliation, they cannot give to either party, they cannot go to rallies, etc. in other words they are there to interpret the law, and not include their personal political feelings. This is what judges are supposed to do, to be neutral unbiased, yet we see it every day from our Supreme Court.
1
Why do so many people seek asylum in the United States instead of in countries that are geographically and culturally closer to their own? What percentage of these people are actually economic migrants who have been coached on what to say in order to be granted asylum?
My relative volunteered in a refugee camp in Thailand back in the 1980’s. His interpreter confided in him that his parents had been shot to death right in front of him. My relative wrote letters to our State Department, trying to get his interpreter and his interpreter's family into the U.S. Once they had been granted asylum, his interpreter also brought over his parents.
Likewise, Amadou Diallo, the immigrant who was killed by NYC police, lied on his request for asylum. According to a 4/9/99 NYT article by Clyde Haberman titled “
NYC; Diallo’s Tale Raises the Bar for Refugees”, Diallo claimed to have fled Mauritania where light skinned Moors were rounding up and deporting Blacks. Diallo also claimed that soldiers had killed his parents, tortured his uncle (which led to his death), and confined him in a military camp before deporting him.
Diallo was granted asylum, but was later shot to death by NYC police who mistook him for a crime suspect. It was then learned that Diallo was not from Mauitania, and that his parents were alive.
Why do so many come here instead of seeking refuge in a country closer to their own? How many come for economic reasons, and concoct stories to claim asylum?
30
Umm gee opie, Bring me your tired huddled masses yearning to be free, this country was built on slaves, immigrants, Chinese, etc. Because the white man was busy committing genocide against the only true Americans in this country, Indians. And don’t forget, your only 3 generations away from being an immigrant yourself, and if you went to ancestry.com you could find that out for yourself. Trump-o the clown is only one generation from being an immigrant, his grandfather, father, mother were from Germany, in fact Trump-o the clowns dad, got his citizenship papers in Seattle.
1
We used to bring them here for hundreds of years in slave ships. And many seemed ungrateful. When the constitution speaks of all men it really means just a few men with property. And that is still what this court believes today.
4
Four cops shot a total of 41 bullets at an UNARMED Diallo.
Half the shots missed.
Cops thought shots from other cops were coming from Diallo.
Diallo was shot and killed because the cops thought he was armed.
Diallo's immigration status had nothing to do with his being shot and killed.
7
The Roberts Court has done more damage to our democracy than any Supreme Court in modern history. The disastrous Citizne's United decision which has allowed dark corporate money (its Free Speech according to Roberts) to distort the electoral process is but one of many black marks against the Roberts Court majority. This denial of due process by the same Court majority is but another Roberts Court effort to erode our democracy. Vote out the Republicans and prevent further drifting of this Court into fascism.
16
Not to mention, the Supreme courts ruling allowing companies to force us into arbitration instead of the courts. They effectively banned us from the courts and class action lawsuits. Of course at corporations behest. And of course Roberts lead the way, with the other conservative justices. And still we sit by.
6
The illegal immigrants in detention have the option of leaving voluntarily. If they choose to remain in detention until their deportation hearing, that is their choice. They want to wait for their due process hearing despite the low probability they will win. The Breyer comment that two thirds will ultimately be granted asylum is intentionally misleading, because few of the people in detention are awaiting asylum hearings.
6
We finally have a SC that believes in the words of the statute without "inflicting linguistic trauma."
It's time to rejoice.
It's time for this SC to re-judge its elastic interpretation of "a well regulated militia."
It's time for this SC to re-litigate the second amendment.
9
and the elastic interpretation of the right to privacy?
3
Why do so few of those commenting here fail to acknowledge that asylum-seekers are NOT in the US "illegally"?
20
Most asylum seekers are not in the country legally at the onset. The simple reason is the requirements to obtain entry - passports, visas, etc -- are controlled by the very entities forcing refugees to seek asylum.
4
It makes them feel guilty and all out of step....
1
No I don’t feel guilty or out of step, I’m not a republican.
2
When Justice Brennan was asked to describe the Supreme Court's most important rule, he honestly replied "the rule of five." In other words, five Justices make a majority.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Justice Breyer, his side lost. He may feel better expressing his views so fervently, but it doesn't change the result one bit. And if anyone believes the 9th circuit can effectively reverse the Supreme Court on remand, I beg to differ. If that court were to hold that the due process clause prohibits indefinite detention of illegal immigrants, a very quick summary slap down would likely follow from the Supreme Court.
In short, I don't see what was accomplished by the dissent. I wish Justice Breyer would have just let this one go. In another case, on another issue, he may be able to convince four other Justices to go along with his views. But this was the wrong case, and the wrong time, to dissent.
12
I looks like we can assume that when the court refused to take up the DACA case yesterday it was signaling to the court of appeals that it expects it to reverse the district court judges findings. The Ninth Circuit probably won't get the message and the court will have to hear the case and overturn the Ninth Circuit yet again.
10
So what is that message.
Mexicans [and wealthy Chinese] come here because we have birthright citizenship! We need to amend the constitution and get rid of this immediately... this is so common sense.
26
Are you so sure you’d be allowed to stay?
Alitto the little Bush gift that keeps on giving to the bigoted right
11
Hold on to your snark.....
This was argued back in 2016 - at the behest of OBAMA admin.....
16
Oh, boo-hoo. They have no business being here. Deport.
22
It still wouldn’t help your unemployability, of your educational level of the 3rd grade.
Boo hoo, deport? So you are prepared to provide room and board for a year or more (jail with no bail) while awaiting a day in court? This makes sense to you?
I dare anyone of you liberals to enter Mexico illegally- You would be jailed immediately! Your emotional support animal would be shot.
What is so wrong with FORCING Mexico [et al] to become a modern society???
Why can't THEY create a society where I would want to live?
They only come here because of birthright citizenship, free government food, education, housing and healthcare. They come here because we are stupid enough to let them in...
28
Interesting that you apparently see asylum seekers as Mexican. Your president seems to have succeeded in getting lots of people here to assume that all such people are from Mexico and crossed on foot. A little education on your part might be useful, but probably not since your beliefs might not be so easy to maintain.
10
You assume too much, you assume he’s educated past the third grade. He fails to see that he’s less educated than someone who was educated 15 years ago, because his party wants to pay for those tax breaks to the rich, a class he’ll never be a part of. By taking money way from education, small minds like his think very, very small.
2
I enter Mexico legally every time I go there, and by the way there are many expatriate that live there, why, because they can live far better there than here. Oh before you open your mouth, I’m a white educated ( beyond high school) male.
Just your ultra right wing racist court at work.
7
Would that be the same ultra right wing court that ruled Obamacare was Constitutional and that same sex couples had a Constitutional right to marry?
3
The opposed justices ought to refuse to sit with these colleagues insensitive to what fairness has traditionally ruled. Perhaps it it is time to tie the court in knots. The elevation of its most recent judge is a decided example of UN American dishonesty
1
The court does not decide 'fairness.' They interpret the law.
Change the law, but do not run circles around it.
16
They don’t interpret the merits of the law, they interpret how their ideology will mesh with it.
The case is not over.
But so far, so good.
Bail usually applies in the context of detention for a criminal arrest,
pending trial for a criminal offense.
But removal proceedings in immigration cases are not criminal proceedings.
They are civil proceedings, and there will be no criminal sentence.
That is a fundamental difference.
In immigration removal proceedings,
the immigrant holds the keys to the supposed "jail" in his own hands --
he can leave any time he wants --
right out the door to his home country.
The wide wide world outside the USA is not jail.
Or, if it really is jail, then Trump's scatological derogatory description for much or it was absolutely correct -- wasn't it?
10
I have a friend who immigrated to the US in 1986. That year President Reagan gave amnesty to 15 Million undocumented immigrants. Each party swore that in return border security would increase such that this could never happen again. All it really did was to encourage another 15 miilion to come into the country over the next 32 years. What do we learn form this. Neither party really gives a care. They pay lip service to homeland security but use it as a red herring to cause dissent in the country while passing crazy give away tax bills costing trillions in lost revenue to the country and enrich the 1%.
14
There were fewer than 3 million illegal aliens granted amnesty under Reagan along with a couple of hundred thousand more who technically did not meet the requirements of the legislation but were family members of those granted amnesty.
The rest of your explanation is correct.
3
To responders below I am pretty sure this does not just affect those who are here illegally. IT AFFECTS MANY LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Most of those who have been held were eventually released. Detention for up to three years? - what about the liberty guaranteed in the constitution? Folks, we are almost all immigrants, again, I note this ruling affects legal immigrants - it is amazing how this man and his desire for attention has twisted us up in knots and manipulated us to spend so much time on so many issues which have so little to do with the real crises we face like failing infrastructure, children being gunned down at schools, growing income inequality, a ballooning deficit and a lack of access to health care.
7
The Times should be precise.. Is this illegal aliens about whom we are speaking? There are perfectly legal immigrants out there as well...
In anycase I do believe in bail.... and releasing people until time for their trial.. Of course my prison stock should go up under this type of jurisdiction.. OYON so do my taxes... or the public debt.
So far as immigration, compassion, etc..... I would like to see the fat cats in the USA take to task the fat cats in other countries who perpetuate terrible living conditions for their citizens, and also would like to see a stop to the wars and global warming which is going to produce evenmore refugees than at the moment.
This is just short term stuff.. One had better start lookng at the future... and soon.
3
What a horror of white supremacy has reasserted itself since January 2017. Roberts, who promised to follow stare decisions, is a right-wing, racist, classist product of the Nader votes in 2000. King George is laughing at our “experiment” in democracy.
3
Ginsberg and Breyer are the consequence of the Perot voters in 1992. What is your point? Elections have consequences. No Republican claimed that Bill's 43% of the popular vote made him an illegitimate president. Why is it that Democrats don't accept Trump's 46% of the vote.
It's not as if Hillary had a majority of the popular vote
2
I'm confused. If they are here illegally, don't we want them to be a flight risk? Just sayin'.
2
Asylum seekers are not in the US illegally, however.
4
Breyer's comment was a red herring, intended to confuse the issue. Very few asylum seekers are in detention. The overwhelming majority of detainees are illegal aliens.
3
Police state, here we come.
Ever since Nixon, the GOP has been slowly destroying the Constitution:
- Watergate
- Iran-Contra
- Gingrich's misuse of impeachment vs. Clinton
- Armed force to stop recount in 2000 (praised by Cheney)
- GOP judges install Bush in 2000
- McConnell's refusal to allow vote on Garland
- Trump's obstruction of justice, collusion, conflicts of interest, etc., etc.
12
As too often happens, the headline is inconsistent with the article. The Court certainly did not rule "no bail hearings".
4
'The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that people held in immigration detention, sometimes for years, are not entitled to periodic hearings to decide whether they may be released on bail". And it does pertain to both illegal status and those with legal status.
3
Ashamed for this ruling.
We cannot just lock people up indefinately in America! Bring them to trial, throw out of the country, but it is inhuman to say you have no rights to freedom.
I know that Bush started doing this at Guantanamo Bay - and those people are still there without trial.
In history this will be seen as comparable to the Dredd Scott decison.
7
Each of the detainees has the option of departing voluntarily.
4
If you are illegal, how can you make bail? Curious.
7
Asylum seekers are not in the US illegally.
3
Justice Breyer noted that the average time of detention was a year and was often much longer, adding that 'many of those whom the government detains eventually obtain the relief they seek."For instance, he wrote "two -thirds of the asylum seekers eventually receive asylum."
1
Very few asylum seekers are in detention. That was a red herring.
And two thirds of asylum seekers WHO SHOW UP for their immigration hearings are successful. The other 85-90% are in the wind.
2
The issue is simple.
There is no doubt that these people are not here legally. Easy to prove. Therefore, they have proven that they are a 'risk' because they are being returned to a society that they have no right to be in....
This decision should be unanimous. The rules may need to change, but before that we need to have a SCOTUS that does not make laws.
12
May you and your family enjoy nothing but misery.
1
The problem is that is not easy to prove. because they are often are held often much longer than a year and eventually obtain relief. Two-thirds of the asylum seekers eventually receive asylum. So the United States is a ruling for unjustified indefinite detention!
1
Let us be frank, there is no immigration law that illegal immigrants need to follow, especially if their resident state is California. Crossing illegally, staying, illegally and obtaining fraudulent documents area all crimes It is not a question of risk to a community but a question of law, border security and immigration policy. Amnesty will soon be bestowed upon the dreamers and their parents who illegally crossed. Under the guise of seeking a better life and being productive members of a community, the illegal population have circumvented immigration law and policy and the following needs to be asked: why enter legally? why wait for years through legal channels? Cross illegally, stay illegally and assume a false identity; the courts and liberals will come to your defense funded by public coffers, followed by amnesty! Governors will disobey national law that ordinary citizens must follow but somehow do not apply to the illegal populous. The issue is divisive but must be plainly stated: are we a nation of borders and laws; or only select laws. The issue must not be conflated with legal immigration and its history. As thousands have crossed illegally many were caught and released for a future court hearing...and how many have actually returned?
24
So a lawyer thinks this is a victory for public safety? Not exactly, since immigrants, legal and otherwise, are less likely to commit crimes than non-immigrants. However, this decision is a great victory for the for-profit corporations who own and operate the detention centers where the detainees are held for months or years on end.
12
The Roberts Court shows again its true colors and ignorance of the meaning of due process, and of freedom.
7
The Roberts Cout agreed with the Obama Administation so...
7
I honestly don't know what side I am on
I feel so badly for the tribulations and plight of those good (with emphasis on 'good') people entering the US illegally.
But if there is to remain a value to citizenship (and there is a great value) then legal entry may be the only option.
6
These are not merely people who entered the U. S. illegally. It covers people with green card status who have been "convicted" of minor crimes as in the case of the plaintiff who was a legal resident and detained for three years. He was working as a dental assistant when he was picked up and placed in detention without a hearing
He had a 'joy riding and a misdemeanor drug possession conviction as a youth.
5
It appears a strict interpretation of the constitutions immigration laws serves the administrations anti immigrant policies.
That said when it comes down to the 2nd amendment a strict interpretation would not be favored nor desired by this administration.
The Republican Supreme Court is going to do more damage to our country’s balance than could ever be contemplated.
5
The ends or the means? Once you start deviating from the text you start moving to the point where the law itself means nothing. Why do Democrats want that?
If Democrats don’t like the law the way to change it is through the legislative process, not the courts.
11
I wonder what part of this sentence leading off the second paragraph of teh Declaration of Independence these "justices" do not understand? Do any of you think its the same misunderstanding that W and his criminal administration had or is this republican cabal espousing a new and different misconception of our very clear founding principles?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
1
"No Bail Hearings for Detained Immigrants"
I guess this is about people who were in the United States illegally. The article never mentions that, just using the word immigrant. If you are here illegally, then you are not an immigrant.
18
This affects legal immigrants as well. Not all immigrants are illegal but that is the way this White House wants us to think.
3
Why would anyone ever want to give a person who has the incentive and means to run and skip bail, a bail hearing? Hello? I like Justice Breyer. Nino Scalia liked him when he was alive. He is an affable, friendly liberal with a brilliant mind and no guile. But sometimes Justice Breyer jumps the "legal shark" as it were with his long winded run on questions peppered with his self defacing musings. Here has has jumped the shark. Lock them up. No bail. Why you say? Because they will not return. Sorry.
11
Let’s read the article. The case is not over. It has been returned to the 9th Cir to determine whether the Constitution allows for bail in such circumstances even if the statute is silent. Justice Breyer felt that the Constitutional question should have been reached. He must feel there is at least a chance the argument is a winner. Let’s see what happens down the line.
3
You mean we will not give the rights of US citizens to people that are not citizens and breaking the law? Why was this decision not 9 - 0? How can the constitution be interpreted any other way?
23
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
What part of that sentence do you not comprehend?
4
Being undocumented is a civil offence, not criminal, handled by immigration court proceedings. It's only criminal if one has previously been deported. International law requires court proceedings. These individuals are being held in detention for more than a year, many of whom could qualify for refugee status. They are human beings and deserve to present their cases. In the meantime, it's the decent thing to allow them to post bail.
2
The Constitution applies to all people regardless of citizenship in the boundaries of the USA or its jurisdiction. Citizens have rights that none-citizens don't have. They are specifically spelled out in the Constitution as citizens rights. Regarding criminal matters the Constitution uses terms like "No Person" "the Accused". If you're in the US and under US law you are entitled to equal protection including the rights under the 8th amendment regarding bail. In the USA you're not guilty of breaking the law because you are accused of breaking the law.
4
Horrible result, but not hopeless. The opinion only interprets the immigration statutes, not constitutional law (very odd that they even asked for briefing on the constitutional issue). Frankly, that's the way all appellate courts work: review only the issue previously decided. While justice delayed IS justice denied, let's hope that when the case returns to the SCOTUS after this remand to consider the constitutional issue, the result will go the other way.
I can think of myriad constitutional holdings that counter this. Still, this case stinks to high heaven.
Vote out everyone who put that majority on the bench.
5
So Justice Alioto objects to the dissent taking extreme liberties with the English language and "inflicting linguistic trauma" in order to "reach remarkable conclusions." One wonders how he feels about Citizens United finding corporations are persons and the trauma it has inflicted on the nation to bring the Republican and Trumpian oligarchy tearing down nearly all that is good and great about the U.S.
9
It appears that the Supreme Court quinquevirate has plenty of time to spare. Refusing to entertain the constitutional aspect of the question at this point is utter officiousness and indifference verging on dilettantism. How is the circuit court expected to find otherwise with regard to the constitutional aspect when it concluded in favour on the much narrower statutory terrain?
It is like asking, after concluding that there is enough light at dawn to tell two persons apart if there is enough light at noon to do the same.
Immigration could have and should have been fixed long ago - to accept people willing to come to the country and contribute.
But blanketing everyone as 'immigrants' regardless of whether they have abided laws helps nobody.
16
At long last that quaint liberal notion of due process is being laid to rest. Perhaps now we can look forward to the federal court system beginning to act in accordance with the president's wishes. By its nature "due process" become a defense against the preferences of those society favors. Why not be able to lock up unauthorized entrants for as long as it is convenient in terms of planning and scheduling trials? Indeed it is questionable whether they should receive trials; better to expel them as soon as they are collected by ICE. And as President Trump himself has asserted there may be times when it is in the public interest that we detain people and lock them away because thery might commit a crime. There are plenty of bad people out there so preventive detention might be preferable to running a risk of violent behavior. And as some of them may display unsettling or disturbing behaviors perhaps it is best they go into mental institutions designed to hold such cases. But the real challenge will be what to do with the unreliables, those whose active dissent or persistent objection to the dominant order is distressingly intrusive. These are the people who will trot out "due process" or alleged other rights to protect their disruptions. We need a mighty educational effort to help the public understand the true meaning of due process has to do with protecting the possession and enjoyment of private property, not assuring the disruptive they still have civil liberties.
5
Indeed, you ought to be the firs to be educated. The decision has nothing to do with presidential powers. It is all about Court's interpretation of the Constitution. That is all.
6
This ruling said nothing about due process or the constitutionality of the detention, only the courts interpretation of the statute. The constitutional question will be resolved in the lower courts.
8
Now you understand how advocates of the 2nd Amendment feel when people immediately start seeking to ban certain types of weapons.
3
There will come a moment when this will be remembered as one of the cruelest and most misguided SC decisions, along the lines of "3/5 of a person".
26
Absolutely. I intend on making sure alien immigrants can run for statewide office.
4
If Thomas and Gorsuch thought the Court was powerless to hear the case, why didn't they abstain? Wouldn't that be the appropriate step to take in support of their position? Seems rather hypocritical to vote on a case in which you find that you have no right to vote on.
12
Must not be an attorney. Justices frequently argue that the court either lacks or has jurisdiction and then writes an opinion. By the way, the majority opinion is spot on. Perhaps you heard that the Supreme Court is not supposed to create the law (that Article 1 power belongs to the Congress).
8
Liberty weeps.
11
The statute literally says nothing about bond hearings after a period of time and definitely does not stipulate a six month window. The 9th circuit just made that up out of thin air. And the liberal wing of the Court was willing to go along with it.
Unbelievable how Breyer thinks his job is to contort black and white statutes to advance his ever-evolving personal views of "active liberty".
19
Whats even more entertaining is reading all the uniformed comments about how "liberty died" and how "cruel" this ruling is. You are of course spot on with your observation. The court's purpose... all courts is to interpret the law and not write the law. This is in effect what the 9th circuit tries to do again and again. I suspect we will see yet another hand wringing editorial from the half wit editors of this paper on the subject.
8
It's worth pointing out, as for some reason this article does not, that this case was initiated by the Obama Administration. In short this is one area where both Obama and Trump agree.
43
LIlo, spot on! Easy to see why your comment is not an NYT Pick. The truth seldom makes it...
8
in nearly all of the dozen or so countries I have been in, this is the norm.
25
I am very pleased by the Court's decision, just one of many more to come. Thank you.
31
Why are you so pleased? Why do you live in America?
1
Another thought here for all of those who are under the impression that their original ancestors who came here, did so "legally via applying for immigration" might like to know the facts. Until about 100 years ago, anyone who showed up was welcomed. That's right, if you made it to our shores, you were in.
Lady Liberty, at Ellis Island, truly welcomed the tired and poor.
This didn't change until about 1920 when we started to discriminate against Asians, and more followed. During an interview with NPR, a gentleman who does tours for the New York Tenement Museum shared that some in the tour were so incensed by these facts that they walked out.
I guess the truth hurts.
22
Must not have seen the Titanic Movie.
Ellis Island was designed to turn away the sick and the destitute.
Could be why America became great.
2
Is 2017. Times change. Conditions change. Whats your point?
4
We didn't have lots of laws then that we do now. So? Times change.
We still accept the tired and poor as long as they follow the proper, legal steps.
4
Detention without any hearing...in the United States of America, a nation of laws.
The nightmare of a stolen Supreme Court seat is coming to pass.
So many of us weep to witness the degradation of our country. The Republican party is a disgrace to all that America stands for.
28
You mean if you break the law there should be no detention?
7
Can't tell all how true lechrist is and how sad I feel. Lechrist has put simply the issue and a powerful message to be repeated.
In the first place, that's a bit over the top.
Also, if we are a nation of laws, while are we even considering letting people who are here illegally stay and enjoy taxpayer-funded benefits like public schooling?
5
The Supreme Court of the infamous Dred Scott decision is back in session! Much more to come.
13
Get these baby boomers out of power.
5
Not the baby boomers that is the problem, most of us are part of 60's revolution and not this Bible-thumping way right thinking individuals. I get accused of being a liberal every day b/c I'm a democrat, I am not a liberal b/c I'm a democrat. Icare about people but have issues with fiscal responsibility on both sides and as an example the tax plan just passed is not a fiscally sound piece of legislation. Not explaining, as much has been written, and neanderthals tht do not see money flying out of their pocket and going to the very rich and corporations can't be convinced. What about a 10% corporate reduction to 25% and give the other 3-4%, if not more, to the middle class? More folks happy and it is the middle class spending that carries the nation, corporate tax savings carry te rich.
1
Good! Maybe they will think twice before they enter and reside here illegally. My patience and sympathy for is over.
Just the other day, a deported twice illegal immigrant found refugee in an Arizona church because he was on the verge of being deported a 3rd time. Need I say.. his wife in an Americans and they have 6 children.. count em.. 6 children.
This ridiculous, incredulous, indulgent selfish behavior must stop!
42
When I read responses like this one, I know that America's days as a democracy are numbered.
2
To clarify - it is not illegal to seek asylum.
1
OK, so the Trump led ICE is not doing its job. Ask Trump why he is not enforcing the laws with respect to illegals as repeat offenders or criminals; and attacking Dreamers and other peaceful ana productive individuals.
1
The government does not have the resources to detain every noncitizen who is in violation of the immigration laws and subject to removal hearings for the duration of that process, not by a long shot. It has been policy and practice for years to prioritize limited detention space for those with criminal records, lack of U.S. ties, or other factors that pose a risk of danger to the community or absconding from their hearings. However, the way this issue is portrayed in the press (including the Times) makes it sound like they are actively seeking to hold all 11 million plus illegal aliens for lengthy periods of time, which is not the case.
14
The plaintiff in this case did not pose any such risk. This was an employed green card holder detained for years over a misdemeanor committed as a youth. This was not a dangerous criminal or someone without ties to the community. It seems foolish to spend tax dollars detaining him or anyone else like him. I hope the lower court can figure this out.
One wonders how many of the immigrants thus are a different color. AND Has anyone checked to see what the Trump family's investments in for-profit prisons might be? Oh, I forgot - we the people are forbidden to see the wanna-be king's taxes.
16
Release of tax records did not come about until REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON. Post FDR's tax returns!! You can't!! The vast majority of President's never revealed their tax returns.
4
Welcome to the new Amerikka.
(Inadvertently, these guys may have just started the 2nd American Revolution).
10
Better go get an AR-15 then. Oh people on the left forgot that is why we have a 2nd Amendment so that if the government ever was abusive (like the Obama Administration) action could be taken if it was needed.
2
Decisions made by the Supreme Court should be made based on law and not on the political persuasions of the justices.
10
Did you read the decision? The law was explicitly spelled out.
6
Oh Whoopee, then there's no need for Trump to be stacking the Supreme Court with right wing radicals.
The Supreme Court has always been a political court. It is now becoming more so. The justices have the final say, because there there is no court above them that petitioners can appeal to.
We wouldn't need a Supreme Court, except to protect the rights of minorities. Immigrants are minorities, and in this case, the Court has chosen not to protect them, just as it chose not to protect Japanese General Yamashita, the Japanese-American citizens interned on the West Coast during World War II, Dred Scott, etc.
We have to find a new way to protect the rights of immigrants, Muslims, and other minorities, especially during times of national hysteria. The Supreme Court cannot do that.
7
We need a new way to PROTECT AMERICA - at least those Americans that still retain rationality. Congress is controlled by Trumpian minions, Trump is a Dotard and now the SC sees to be caving into anti-Constitutional mode. If this really is the case (and consider Trump's Appellate Court appointments), we are facing what may very well be a real revolution to protect our freedoms.
Shuttering the press, making threats against anyone who disagrees with the Dotard, putting the country in debt that our children will not be able to repay, stacking the tax statutes to favor the rich at the expense of the poor, destroying health care and now locking up immigrants without review or bail is a real beginning to a Fascist authoritarian State with a severely disturbed "Emperor" at the helm.
TRUMP AND HIS TROUP MUST BE OUSTED IN 2018! This is not a partisan political statement - it is an ANTI-TRUMP one - for all of you blind "conservatives".
6
I would submit that the best way to effect change and guarantee rights is to vote for politicians who will enact just laws. If the Supreme Court's fashion is to decide based on a strict reading of the law, then change the law.
1
It was not President Trump who claimed he would "fundamentally change America". That dishonor belongs exclusively to the last administration. The last administration abused Executive Powers and was rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously 13 times. Facts matter.
6
He who would learn law must first study justice. So sad Cicero a few years back. But no. He who would learn the law must learn brutality. That is the modern way, isn't it. E pluribus Abu Gharaib. There once was a country called America
10
I will share with you an anecdote that one of my law school professors taught us our very first year. Chief Justice Holmes and Judge Learned Hand were having breakfast together. At the end of the breakfast Chief Justice Holmes told Judge Hand to go do Justice. Judge Hand informed Chief Justice Holmes that was not his job. Judge Hand's job was to follow the law as it was passed. Chief Justice Holmes admitted his mistake and the two parted as friends.
3
Indefinite detention? No hearing? No right for redress? Is this the United States of America? What is happening to my country?
119
Those protections are for citizens--like you and me. They are not for people who illegally broke into our country--and when arrested and released, would likely skip out on a hearing.
29
No, the Bill of Rights is not restricted to citizens. And, to say Constitutional protections are not for people who broke the law is ridiculous on its face.
3
So unlike Citizens United, where the conservative judges on the court reached for questions not presented in original arguments and bent over backwards to find Constitutional arguments that twisted the meaning of free speech, the conservative judges now refuse to answer a Constitutional question squarely in front of it, where the language in the founding documents is plain as day?
13
You mean the language that only applies to the U.S. Government and sets forth the protections of U.S. CITIZENS? Perhaps, you need to retake a U.S. history class or a constitutional law class. The Constitution is a limitation of the Federal government. Facts matter.
2
All forthcoming 5-4 conservative decisions should be considered illegitimate. The current SCOTUS is the shameful result of Scalia's stolen seat, a stolen presidential election, and a hyper-partisan senate approval process. (And that's leaving aside the stolen 2000 election and Bush junior's appointments of Roberts and Alito.) The fruit of a poisoned tree is worse than rotten. It's utterly malignant for the body politic.
10
You mean like Roe v. Wade and finding "rights" that do not appear and were illegal at the founding of our blessed country?
2
Matthew, Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision and has been upheld many times despite opportunities for reversal. Now it's at the mercy of our illegitimate court. That is, unless someone like Clarence Thomas can be impeached for lying during congressional testimony or sexually assaulting a woman in the 1990's.
(http://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-haras...
As for founding principles, Africans and native Americans could be slaves as could their offspring with as much as 7/8 European blood (witness Jefferson's 6 kids by Sally Hemmings). And only landed white men could vote. Even the sainted Scalia used originalism when it suited his ideology but ignored it when it wasn't convenient.
Many things have changed for the better in our blessed country. Stealing a seat for Gorsuch isn't one of them.
1
“The Trump administration is trying to expand immigration detention to record-breaking levels as part of its crackdown on immigrant communities” ACLU quote. ... perhaps that's the public face, but the sickening reality is that those privately owned prisons are big, big money. Follow the profits and you'll see what's really behind the nightmare lockups.
7
This is the type of ruling that will lead us to the slippery road of despotism.
Because, this is not ruling based on the merits of the accused of being a flight risk, but something far more uglier.
This ruling is based on the ugly xenophobia from a presidential administration and a general public that have whipped up to a fenzy to hate “the other.”
So, don’t think for a moment that you and me, as lawful citizens, are safe from this frenzy, because it clearly will not take too much for some Trumplike demogogue to call you and me an enemy of the people and whip up a mindless general public into a frenzy and have an all too willing “justice” system that is more than happy to let “enemies” like you and me rot in jail.
11
The Obama Administration is the one who appealed this to the Supreme Court. The Obama and Trump Administrations are in agreement on this decision. So which one is trading in ugly xenophobia?
4
“We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, its insistence that all men and women have ‘certain unalienable rights,’” [Justice Beyer] said. “We need merely recall that among them is the right to ‘liberty.’”
Clearly, all men and women no longer includes non-Americas. Sad, bigly.
7
Another history for the poorly educated. The Declaration of Independence was written as a justification as to why COLONISTS (A.K.A BRITISH SUBJECTS) WERE FREE TO THROW OFF THE TYRANNY OF THE KING. The Declaration of Independence was not written for any other group of people. Read the document, learn about its authors and understand its actual context! Facts matter.
4
That's great. Just grab 'em anywhere (hospitals, kid's school, church), throw 'em in jail, and throw away the keys.
The inhumanity is gobsmacking!
30
No, they shouldn't have the keys thrown away...they should be deported to their homelands.
8
Wrong!!! they don't get bail hearings.. they still get deportation order hearings. and can voluntarily sign deportation orders. bless your heart and first amendment rights. I swear the ignorance never stops a comment from empowering the stupidity of the masses about subject matters they don't understand and refuse to google. Emotionally weak, mentally feeble, and lazy.
7
The principle remains the same wether it is a "time out" for a child on the stairs or detention for an illegal entry here. It is a learning and example process. " If you can't do the time don't do the crime". Again, as I have said before it is shameful that we can't deal with illegal immigrants in a more timely fashion. Incarceration waiting for a hearing or a trial needs to be tempered with risk to society. Timely evaluation of the risks here should be faster than at present.
4
Yet another case of the radical left-leaning 9th Circuit being overturned. And thus we see why it was crucial to deny Merrick Garland. Confirming him would have turned the U.S. Supreme Court into the 9th Circuit--meaning that the Constitution would have taken a back seat to progressive sensibilities.
24
What about due process of law? Isn't that what the Constitution dictates we do here in the U.S.? Is that not a conservative value?
9
Did the SC just rule that (illegal and non-citizen) immigrants do not have the same rights as citizens?
This is huge .. and a harbinger on immigration and travel ban cases coming up before the SC later this year.
11
So following this logic and denial of rights, are they subject to the decisions of The Supremes?!
8
Ouch. That was good.
If we want to be the land of the free, it might help to assume that absent specific evidence to the contrary, our lawmakers' intent is to preserve and protect, rather than deny, constitutional rights.
2
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that this ruling applies to all immigrants and non-US citizens - not just those (suspected of) living in the country without proper authorization. This would include the roughly 13 million legal permanent residents and the tens millions of foreign students, workers and visitors who have temporary authorization to reside in this country. In other words, if ICE or any immigration agency suspects a non-US citizen of a crime, that individual is not guaranteed a fair chance to defend themselves in court. It's deeply troubling to me that basic constitutional rights do not extend to such a huge portion of our population.
99
So depending on legal entity interpretation of the ruling and justice dept notes and direction, at face value alone, the immigration courts, are just that, limited in scope to immigration issues. Depending on the type of legal situation one finds themselves inj, there are various court types that would be limited to functioning in that capacity. so No is the best answer BUT, ICE can put someone on a detainer, and if they find another crime occurs, will forward that to the appropriate investigative or prosecutive entity for action. this is what sactuary states like California are prohibited from doing with federal immigration courts.
1
Your points need broad coverage: "legal permanent residents and tens millions of foreign students, workers and visitors who have temporary authorization to reside in this country" may be subject to detention...without due process. This has already happened -- I'm surprised the NY Times left the points you made out.
After 50 Years as a Legal Immigrant, I Spent 18 Months in Immigration Detention Without a Bail Hearing
https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detent...
U.S. Citizen Who Was Held By ICE For 3 Years Denied Compensation By Appeals Court
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen...
2
Did we learn nothing from our detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II? Did we forget the inhumanity of indefinite detention without reason? Did we forget the inhumanity of breaking up families? Did we forget the inhumanity of discrimination based on nothing more than where someone's ancestors may have lived?
Indeed, these are lessons we as Americans seem destined to repeat time and again as we did not learn them after the Civil War, we did not learn them after the Army massacred the Native Americans in the 1800s, we did not learn it during the women's suffragette movement, we did not learn them after World War II, and we still did not learn them after the Civil Rights marches in the 1960s. For a country built on the ideals of freedom and building your own future, we are insistent on denying those ideals to those who do not fit with the ideal of the white, male American.
Alexander Hamilton wept.
12
the Japanese were not immigrants, they were mostly American born, all were citizens. none were in the country illegally.
the reason the SCOTUS states is the illegal entry or sustain residency after the expiration of the visa. In many of these cases, the person detained is offered regularly to sign a voluntary deportation order and is remanded back to their home country. This only says they don't get a right to bail hearings to continue to function illegally.
7
Good luck and Godspeed as Ahilan Arulanantham heads back to the lower courts to argue that these immigration statutes violate the due process clause.
A land of the free and home of the brave does not hold people indefinitely, regardless of whether they are citizens or immigrants.
9
The Republican Justices seem more intent on playing intellectual dodge ball by returning the case to the Ninth Circuit, than addressing the plight of these unfortunate victims of indefinite confinement. Clearly, the Court could have, and should have, reviewed the constitutionality of the detentions once the majority concluded the legislation was insufficient. But, then again, these are, after all, Republican Justices.
4
McConnell’s robbery of Merrill Garland’s Supreme Court seat is paying off handsomely.
7
It wasn't his seat unless the Senate agreed to it. And they didn't.
3
Welcome to the Court, Mr. Justice Gorsuch. Had the Republican-controlled Senate accorded Judge Garland the courtesy of a hearing, he might have been Justice Garland and immigrants may have been accorded the right of bail hearings-a right posited on fundamental fairness and decency. Such a right was also denied Judge Garland.
The Court has signaled how it may treat our “tired and poor” in the future.
136
I agree wholeheartedly except for your characterization of a hearing for Judge Garland as a courtesy. It was actually a constitutional requirement.
1
Do not come illegally is the best defense against long detention. On the other hand it is shameful that we have such long detention. A right to a speedy trial is being abused for sure.
16
Well this makes sense in the current environment... constitutional rights are for white folk
91
What makes you think this ruling doesnt apply to whites?
12
Oh please .. the race card is over used
12
In the current environment, Constitutional rights are for RICH white folk.
1
What a twisting of semantics. Common sense indicates that this seems defy both the 5th (no person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law) and 6th (the right to a speedy and public trial) Amendments.
66
Your mistake is assuming these "conservatives" think non-US citizens are people.
5
These Justices appear to be complying with the mental punishment of their their childhood.
4
If an immigration detainee is not a flight risk and poses no danger to public safety, why not allow for bail? Aren't our jails full enough with dangerous criminals as it is? Or is this just a cynical move to put more money ion the hands of the private prison operators that have become so popular in Washington and state capitals over the past 20 years?
14
Bingo. But there is also an extremist libertarian ideology at play, Constitution be damned.
1
They lock immigrants up in special, private detention centers. Very profitable, private detention centers.
1
There is no right to bail because the detainees hold the keys to the cell. They can get out any time they want by agreeing to go back. This is a civil matter and not criminal.
23
It amazes me this comment made it past the moderator, when it is clear Marvin from L.A. not only has no idea of the difference between civil and criminal law and also has no idea that when someone is accused for violating immigration statutes it is a criminal matter.
Good point.
5
Rulings such as this, make it official to the world at large, that the United States Supreme Court is a tainted court working on behalf of a proxy government. These rulings are NOT based on the rule of law, or our Constitution, but on biased political sentiment. We have become like those countries we used to point an accusatory finger at. Unjust. And just as unreal.
16
Justice Alito’s response to Breyer’s dissent was particularly repugnant.
7
This is how a slippery slope, the road to perdition for a Republic, begins.
While TrumPutin are inflicting everlasting damage to our institutions and norms as well!
6
All this wailing.
Because illegal immigrants will start to self deport.
22
I believe that if those in indefinite detention entered our country illegally, then they should be given the opportunity to leave indefinite detention and go to any country that will take them. If they choose to leave, then this situation will be less of a burden on all parites.
10
This is the kind of law that the Nazi's started with prior to 1933. Wait and see where we end up.
93
Welcome to pre-fascist USA! Everyday it feels like Germany and Italy 1936.
4
Stop drinking the cool aid
8
You might have your directions wrong no one was trying to get into Nazi Germany in 1933 !!
7
If we want to convince people that America is not a nice place to live all we have to do is just what we're doing now: keep them locked up with no access to any legal assistance. Or better yet, when we keep them in Guantanamo for years and years.
It's not that this country has always been welcoming to immigrants because it hasn't. But to go out of our way to stigmatize all immigrants as bad is the height of stupidity. Almost all of us have relatives who emigrated here or we know someone who emigrated here. How many of our relatives were "bad" people? How many bad immigrants do we know? And how would we feel if we were naturalized citizens being told that we were bad?
14
These people broke any law in their way to get to the USA.
The idea the they will show up for court and other proceedings is a stretch of the imagination.
Detention until adjudication is a prudent choice.
Current time in New York State, (UTC-5)
3:33 PM
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
46
FYI, many undocumented immigrants in the US overstayed a visa, which is not a crime.
3
Correct when they have less than 40% showing up for court hearings, why would release someone when you know they are not showing up to their court hearing.
5
The detained immigrant in this case is not an illegal immigrant. The case in referral to the ruling was brought to the Supreme Court by a Legal Permanent Resident who was working as a dental assistant and was challenging his 3 years confinement by then. He has since won the case.
FAKE NEWS... Why are these detainers called "immigrants" instead of illegal aliens. Where in the constitution are these rights given to them? The Supremes rules correctly
41
The Bill of Rights refers to people, persons, and "the accused". You might want to read it for yourself, please concentrate on Amendments V and VI http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
9
The Constitution does not refer to "citizens", only people!
Amendment V says "No person...be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law", and Amendment VI says "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial". None of the other Amendments specify citizenship as a requirement for these human rights.
6
Because this applies to visa or green card holders or even to a tourist here legally. It's not just for people who came to the US illegally.
2
So, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-U.S. citizens don't have the rights protected in the U.S. constitution?
Oh, the horrors!
20
US citizenship is not a prerequisite for Constituional due process.
9
Really? So, why did the founding fathers include the term "citizen(s)" in the document? Why didn't they use the term "resident(s)" instead?
2
They also included a lot of others words too, Ryan ... like ‘people’ and ‘persons’.
Even people who commit misdemeanors are ‘people’ to you, right Ryan?
This is a huge cost to the American tax payers. Woildnt the smart thing to do is send the violater back to their home country and instruct them how to apply for legal immigration.
23
The people in detention almost all (some countries don't accept their citizens back) have the ability to be deported to their home country any time they want, but are choosing to stay in the US and challenge their deportations.
4
The Supreme Court treats corporations as human beings, but can't treat human beings like human beings. Corporate campaign money destroying our nation, no problem. Illegal immigrants? Let them rot in hell. I ask you, which is a greater danger to America? The inhumane consumes itself.
252
Your comment is dead on. Does anyone remember The Spirit of St. Louis ship which tried to bring Jewish refugees from the Nazis to the US and was turned back so they could return to the Holocaust in Europe? They would have sent Jesus back also because he was Jewish. But then of course the right wing of the Christian world is not educated enough to know those facts. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. A wise quote from George Santayana.
5
FDRs admin was right wing?
1
We can expect this type of decisions for a long, long time. Right-wing, activist Justices are firmly in control of the Supreme Court now, and the lower courts are being flooded with more of the same.
7
Like Merrick Garland?
1
In response, Justice Alito accused his colleagues of taking extreme liberties with the English language. “The dissent evidently has a strong stomach when it comes to inflicting linguistic trauma,” Justice Alito wrote. “The contortions needed to reach these remarkable conclusions are a sight to behold.”
And the majority has a strong stomach when it comes to inflicting trauma on human beings.
79
And the human beings held for the violation of our immigration law have strong sense of entitlement for things they don't deserve.
17
They deserve to be treated as 'human beings,' Paul,,,
6
So, linguistic trauma is a sight to behold? What a crazy, mixed metaphor! The justice himself is the one doing damage to the US Constitution.
2
"No Bail Hearings for Detained Immigrants"...
Are the authorities detaining people that arrived in the United States legally or are they detaining illegal migrants? The title and article doesn't make this clear.
13
It was for people entering the country illegally.
2
The majority in the case should re-read Executive Order 9066 and determine if they wish to be covered with shame in the same way as the justices who allowed that error to go forward.
6
“The dissent evidently has a strong stomach when it comes to inflicting linguistic trauma,” Justice Alito wrote. “The contortions needed to reach these remarkable conclusions are a sight to behold.”
Such a revealing comment from someone who clearly gets off on inflicting actual trauma.
146
Alito has no heart. Sadly, it's a requirement for being a fair justice.
2
Yeah, Robert. If you want to read a SCOTUS opinion that involves "inflicting linguistic trauma," read Alito in Ledbetter v Goodyear. The question there is when the clock starts running for the deadline to file gender pay discrimination suits. For years courts had held it was when the most recent act of discrimination was inflicted. The regulations agreed and there was a clear legislative record supporting this. This a obviously a case when stare decisis applied.
Alito wanted to help corporations and said the clock started earlier, but he could not come up with a clear answer as to when. His twisting logic is a sight to behold.
2
What gets me is that despite the overly-elaborate, pompous wording - it's just a dumb comment. A dumb, mean remark that this drip clearly thinks is biting and Churchillian. The more I read of Alito's remarks, the more convinced I am that he is actually... not that smart.
1
My question on this is, if the Trump administration is willing to detain an immigrant without a hearing how long before they are trying to do this to a citizen of this country and I believe if given the chance they would do it.
This does not make America great in anyway.
238
U.S. citizens have rights guaranteed in the U.S. constitution.
25
The answer: for a legal citizen, that won't be a problem.
The next real question, is when can people be deported who are illegal and in detention.
4
And what if the locked-up immigrant is the parent or child or even spouse of a US Citizen?
9
This is INHUMANE and in the same spirit and construct as slavery. When we start detaining people without due process under the protection of the Constitution whether they be documented or not within our borders, we return to a time in this country in which we detained people in this same manner- without rights and without due process held only under our bigoted and false belief that they lack autonomy because of where they are from and what language they speak. This is indeed legal fiction. And not lawful at all. Shame on us all.
172
" .. This is INHUMANE and in the same spirit and construct as slavery ,,:
Actually, GWB offered unlawful immigrants, free escorted airfare back to their country of origin. That would be a good idea to repeat, now.
7
Please stop.
This is not slavery.
This is not like the internment of Japanese-American citizens.
This is not the Holocaust.
If it was so wrong and horrific then why pray tell were Obama and Trump in agreement on this?
It was Obama who appealed the 2014 district court ruling that brought us to where we are today.
8
Yes, it was Obama! It seems he wanted it both ways. He didn't want bail hearings but he didn't want to deport those who didn't have felony convictions. I'm really appalled by the treatment of asylum seekers who are detained for a year or more until they gain asylum.
1
Such a cruel nation we have become. We render people to black sites without charge or hope of freedom; we lock up immigrants seeking asylum for years. We are no better than King George.
291
" .. we lock up immigrants seeking asylum for years .."
Uh, GWB offered unlawful immigrants, free trips home to their country of origin.
Isn't that on them, CK?
8
Shame on the Supreme Court for this decision. If I understand this correctly, the immigrant can be locked up indefinitely.
118
Barooby - won’t go anywhere until released from the indefinite detention. BTW, not a criminal until convicted, which requires a court to determine, no? Perhaps we have morphed to “guilty because I said you are”
6
No, she can't. She is locked up indefinitely. Perhaps you would have approved of that treatment for your ancestors.
8
Being illegally in the United States is a misdemeanor. It is a civil offense, not a criminal one.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/undocumented-immigrants-not-nece...
8
Elena Kagan has had to recuse herself from a relatively large number of very important cases. This one stings as it deepens an already vast disconnect between democracy and civil rights.
In a democracy, indefinite detention should be an aberrant concept. In this oligarchy, it has become a norm. In the police state we've constructed since 9-11, this has been a path we've gone down without much debate or hesitation. We detain indefinitely within and outside of our borders. We incarcerate in solitary confinement for decades at a time. Torture, as a matter of legality, is debated. lightly, every few years and, in the meantime, civil liberties are shrunk to the point where they, too, can be suffocated in a bathtub.
Note to future liberal presidents: think long and hard about what kinds of cases your supreme court nominees will have to recuse themselves from...
---
www.rimaregas.com
159
Even with Kagan it would have gone against 5 to 4. More fallout from letting McConnell steal the seat and those who didn't or wouldn't vote for Hillary paying foward a steep price for years to come. The load of bad decisions from court just beginning. Gorsuch will prove to be a nightmare like his mom, who was a ruthless and terrible anti-envrionmentalist having had Zinke's job in a prior R admin.
26
" .. indefinite detention should be an aberrant concept .."
So is allowing 13,000,000+ to unlawfully live in the USA. No other modern country tolerates this openly-brazen break-down of rule of law. Shame on GWB, B. Clinton, GHWB, and BHO -- weak and spineless, they gave the USA "Not Hillary."
9
Bing,
You don't indefinitely detain people you want to deport or people to whom you've given special protection, such as was done under DACA.
Indefinite detention is supposed to be used in terror cases such as Al Qaeda. Allowing it to be used in a limited way has led to this now being generalized to immigration in the minds of voters like you. Shameful.
18